3 ms·

On the flip side, while the actual _risk_ we all agree is low, that's not the same as the human fear of it. Even if illogical, given two otherwise equal cities

On the flip side, while the actual _risk_ we all agree is low, that's not the same as the human fear of it. Even if illogical, given two otherwise equal cities, which is more "livable": the one with a stable and open atmosphere, or the one with scared citizens, under a state of emergency, where the country at large is implementing knee-jerk responses against the "others" who are related to this attack (referencing the current burkini bans rolling across France).

carlob 10y ago
This. If you visit Paris now, you see more police, a slightly worse nightlife. Right after the attacks you could see everyone was really on edge. On the other hand if you're taking into account this kind of mood/atmosphere, a place like Paris should be generally pretty low on that scale as people you interact with in your daily life seem a lot more stressed, tired, unhappy and sometimes aggressive than in any other French city. I know it's a stereotype, but it's kinda true.
- chebum 10y ago
  Another point is that you cannot afford living in Paris with just one working. Even if he's working as a software developer. How a city can be "liveable" if you cannot earn enough to live there?
  - Retric 10y ago
    Programmers make good money, but plenty of people make far more. Breaking 200k is very doable with a single income. The question is if the city's are worth living there assuming you can afford to.
    - aries1980 10y ago
      How much is the percentage of the people who is living in the city and makes that amount of income?
morgante 10y ago
That's a good point that I hadn't considered. It would be much better if they directly measured the impact of this on cities though, particularly because the reaction to terrorist attacks is vastly different (see the difference in German and French reactions, for example). In fact, it could then penalize heavy-handed responses even when there hasn't been a terrorist attack. For example, the US maintains some draconian security measures and a police state mentality even though there haven't been any recent terror attacks (does every single MTA rider really need to be constantly reminded to watch suspicious packages?). For that matter, I'm confident that you're quite safe from terrorism in Dubai. But the ranking should really include the dramatic security apparatus/environment which is in place to maintain that safety.
- kaeluka 10y ago
  Almost per definition, most of the damage done is the public reaction. In that sense, the US is affected much more than countries who have been targeted much more recently.

carlob 10y ago

This. If you visit Paris now, you see more police, a slightly worse nightlife. Right after the attacks you could see everyone was really on edge. On the other hand if you're taking into account this kind of mood/atmosphere, a place like Paris should be generally pretty low on that scale as people you interact with in your daily life seem a lot more stressed, tired, unhappy and sometimes aggressive than in any other French city. I know it's a stereotype, but it's kinda true.

chebum 10y ago
Another point is that you cannot afford living in Paris with just one working. Even if he's working as a software developer. How a city can be "liveable" if you cannot earn enough to live there?
- Retric 10y ago
  Programmers make good money, but plenty of people make far more. Breaking 200k is very doable with a single income. The question is if the city's are worth living there assuming you can afford to.
  - aries1980 10y ago
    How much is the percentage of the people who is living in the city and makes that amount of income?

morgante 10y ago

That's a good point that I hadn't considered. It would be much better if they directly measured the impact of this on cities though, particularly because the reaction to terrorist attacks is vastly different (see the difference in German and French reactions, for example). In fact, it could then penalize heavy-handed responses even when there hasn't been a terrorist attack. For example, the US maintains some draconian security measures and a police state mentality even though there haven't been any recent terror attacks (does every single MTA rider really need to be constantly reminded to watch suspicious packages?). For that matter, I'm confident that you're quite safe from terrorism in Dubai. But the ranking should really include the dramatic security apparatus/environment which is in place to maintain that safety.

kaeluka 10y ago
Almost per definition, most of the damage done is the public reaction. In that sense, the US is affected much more than countries who have been targeted much more recently.